3 ms·

Who do you think enforces property rights? And by what basis do they lay claim to make other people respect those rights?

nybble41 8y ago
> Who do you think enforces property rights? I assume that you intended this as a rhetorical question, but the answer is not "the government". Governments do not exist to defend property rights—that is merely propaganda. No criminal organization violates property rights more brazenly or systematically than governments do on a routine basis. Every tax, every regulation, every disproportionate punishment, every victim prevented from pursuing justice while those ostensibly granted that role do nothing—almost everything the government does involves violating property rights in some form. The only point in their favor is that, like any other protection racket, they are jealous of their monopoly and not very tolerant of lesser criminals setting up operations on their turf. > And by what basis do they lay claim to make other people respect those rights? There is no need to "make" other people respect anything. That is what makes property a natural right; the very act of violating a property right naturally justifies a proportional response in kind. That is simple universality and reciprocation at work, the basis for any self-consistent system of rights, and it is more than sufficient to ensure that most individuals will respect others' property rights without being coerced, because they in turn need others to recognize their claims to property as valid. Those who chose otherwise cannot rationally object if their victims respond in kind, taking back their own property plus a proportional amount as retribution. If you are interested in further reading on this subject, I can recommend Stephen Kinsella's "Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach" (https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/12_1_3_0.pdf?file=1&type=document https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/12_1_3_0.pdf?file=1&typ...).
- infinite8s 8y ago
  What happens when a group of people with no property decide to come and take yours and kill you and your family? As a side note, in regards to your original point about beach front property, the paper you linked only recognizes property rights of property that has been homesteaded. So there would be no way of some rich person purchasing acres of land for their own private use (using the structure definition of homesteading).
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    As might happen if you decide to stop paying the fee on your land to the government? Well, sans the killing. You'll just have your family split up, be imprisoned, and forced to live in dehumanizing conditions for years, while your property is taken and sold off for 'revenue.' It's much more civil... For what it's worth I'm playing devil's advocate here, as usual, but I don't think this particular issue is so easy to defend. Something I was surprised to learn is that in the US, the police didn't even exist until 1838. Prior to that there were volunteer community watch and other such programs. I think the proper balance is probably one we've gone long past that's somewhere in between community efforts and heavily centralized paramilitary law enforcement.

nybble41 8y ago

> Who do you think enforces property rights? I assume that you intended this as a rhetorical question, but the answer is not "the government". Governments do not exist to defend property rights—that is merely propaganda. No criminal organization violates property rights more brazenly or systematically than governments do on a routine basis. Every tax, every regulation, every disproportionate punishment, every victim prevented from pursuing justice while those ostensibly granted that role do nothing—almost everything the government does involves violating property rights in some form. The only point in their favor is that, like any other protection racket, they are jealous of their monopoly and not very tolerant of lesser criminals setting up operations on their turf. > And by what basis do they lay claim to make other people respect those rights? There is no need to "make" other people respect anything. That is what makes property a natural right; the very act of violating a property right naturally justifies a proportional response in kind. That is simple universality and reciprocation at work, the basis for any self-consistent system of rights, and it is more than sufficient to ensure that most individuals will respect others' property rights without being coerced, because they in turn need others to recognize their claims to property as valid. Those who chose otherwise cannot rationally object if their victims respond in kind, taking back their own property plus a proportional amount as retribution. If you are interested in further reading on this subject, I can recommend Stephen Kinsella's "Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach" (https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/12_1_3_0.pdf?file=1&type=document https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/12_1_3_0.pdf?file=1&typ...).

infinite8s 8y ago
What happens when a group of people with no property decide to come and take yours and kill you and your family? As a side note, in regards to your original point about beach front property, the paper you linked only recognizes property rights of property that has been homesteaded. So there would be no way of some rich person purchasing acres of land for their own private use (using the structure definition of homesteading).
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  As might happen if you decide to stop paying the fee on your land to the government? Well, sans the killing. You'll just have your family split up, be imprisoned, and forced to live in dehumanizing conditions for years, while your property is taken and sold off for 'revenue.' It's much more civil... For what it's worth I'm playing devil's advocate here, as usual, but I don't think this particular issue is so easy to defend. Something I was surprised to learn is that in the US, the police didn't even exist until 1838. Prior to that there were volunteer community watch and other such programs. I think the proper balance is probably one we've gone long past that's somewhere in between community efforts and heavily centralized paramilitary law enforcement.